₦airaland Forum

buzugee: oh ye carnal minded children of God,

But can the ax boast greater power than the person who uses it? Is the saw greater than the person who saws? Can a rod strike unless a hand moves it? Can a wooden cane walk by itself? ISAIAH 10:15

let us come to the conclusion of the whole matter

All Scripture is God-breathed 2 TIMOTHY 3 VS 16

so whomever wrote it is insignificant because he was simply the axe used by God. The person who swung the axe is God.

You and ALL these your quotes. Nobody says the ALL scriptures is not God breathed, we are only trying to also "prove all things"

Brother Frosbel,

It's like you didn't open this thread with an open mind to listen to other people's opinion. Well, it's okay because it's not every time we agree. I didn't highlight "destroy" in RED...if you read carefully, I highlighted "afterward". What that means is that, I wanted to convey a message that Jude was telling us examples to learn from which Apostle Paul also did that we should learn from the Israelites when God delivered them from Egypt but "afterward" destroyed them that didn't believe. Them that "believe not" is not just a mere statement. It was used to en-capsule ALL the sins committed by the Israelites "after" God delivered them from Egypt.

If God would not spare such, why do you think God would spare people that didn't believe in the "eternal death of His son" and also, we can as well say that after we give our lives to Christ, we can continue to sin after all, we are saved, God will not cast punish such sins. This in my view will put the message of the bible at risk. This is the first message am trying to convey by highlighting "afterward" in RED.

Now, back to the thread. I believe there is eternal judgment for eternal sinners - eternal hell who do not believe in the eternal death of Christ as well as there is eternal rest for those that believed in sacrifice of Jesus. God is a God of mercy BUT He is also a God of justice. The wicked and the righteous do not have same reward and this is very clear from the word of God.

I have also gone through your "thought" and where this thread was generated from: https://www.nairaland.com/974971/rich-man-lazarus. I should have read that thread when you started it but if you observe me closely, I don't jump at every thread. However, where I agree with you is the quote below:

frosbel: I agree with my LORD and Savior on hell , he will burn the chaff with 'unquenchable fire ' and destroy both soul and body in hell.

Please let us stop portraying God as a sadist and chasing potential sheep away from the gospel.

Off course, no wise soul winning believer will chase people away from the kingdom of God BUT at the same time, without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It's a balanced Gospel. We don't go about condemning sinner but doesn't mean we should pamper sin (though we sometimes commit sin not as willfully but sometimes an act of mistake) and trample of the Grace of God.

I don't think the teaching of this article is right. It will be another longer time to go into this. I am kind of like tired for today. I might respond slowly though but let's give another thought for this verse and let's chew it in context what the Spirit is saying:

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. Jude 5.

Yeah, we saying same thing but how do you separate denomination from church? To me, denomination is just a name given to a particular church setting that distinguishes one church setting from the other simply because we don't all agree on some biblical topics. Abi no be so?

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1 cor. 14:28 kjv

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Cor. 14:34 Kjv

Are you saying believers should not attend "christian assembly"? I might attend to this topic slowly anyway. I just went through your other thread where you signal my attention. Though the church is church BUT it doesn't mean we should not attend church meetings. I know God does not dwell in temples (NOT CHURCH) made with hands, that is why He says we are the temple of God but God ordained church as it is. If we have issues going on in the church, then we deal with it but not to kick against what God ordained.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:28 Kjv

Does this text read like God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers .... IN ME?....If the church doesn't mean Christian Worship place/gathering?

Church is good and biblical for Jesus founded the church in His infinite wisdom BUT what is wrong with the church today?

Is the church good? YES

Is the church hijacked by false men? YES

Out of context coercive text to manipulate brethren? WRONG

Membership controlled techniques? WRONG

Tithe to be a registered member with benefits and to secure some high positions? WRONG, fraud/business methods applied.

Going to church? RIGHT.

Enslaved church members? WRONG.

Free-will, faithful and committed church membership? RIGHT

Mandatory church attendance? WRONG.

Subtly Intimidation? WRONG

A bit busy today my brother. Will respond in due time, lolz

^^^
Thanks. I will take a deep look.

snthesis: I really wonder why Goshen360 is throwing every illogical thing to pass a wrong msg- and i doff my hat to frosbel for puttin him through the ridiculous argument.
the truth is revelation of and understanding of the "word" comes from God- applying human intelligence wont cut it and u will end up being confused-"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

but then the end point/purpose of all these arguments is jst to create doubt in the minds of Christians- turn them into atheist or agnostics at best.

lolz. Na wha for you. The word of God doesn't make sense some times. . Abeg, am tired for today. Make I relax my brain jare.

LoJ: Hello Goshen,

If you read me carefully, you'd see that my concern is not the debate over this issue. It's normal and good for us to debate and analyse such issues...

My point was concerning that affirmation of yours: "Yes, we can know the writer, I believe." over a controversy that last since the very first century of this era and has never found a universally accepted conclusion.

So what we can do here, is just guessing and supposing with humility recognizing that the truth in this matter belong only to GOD.

GOD in his Lordship has decided not to expose the author of this brilliant book. Let us humble before him and accept his sentence. Moreover, let us learn from that, the art of not exposing ourselves, our science and our ability, but in all things give the glory to GOD alone.

LoJ

I completely agree with you about the sovereignty of God not disclosing the author of this book and we should accept his authority in that sense. That was a heavy one. However, when each individual search out the matters and hold something close to the fact/truth even thought it might not be universally accepted; it still doesn't mean we cannot hold a certain view. This is similar to the other thread where both sides seems to have some facts about the angels. Anyway, I so much appreciate your thought and always respect your thought, loving to read your thought anywhere in any thread.

LoJ: Well, I'd interested to read the verses in that book that led you to think it was a letter addressed specifically and exclusively to the hebrews.

Can't Wait to read that...

First I didn't say the book was "exclusively" written to the Hebrews. Maybe you misunderstood the context of my words. You know Christianity/body of Christ is made up of the Jews and Gentiles right. So what am saying is that, the book was "primarily" NOT "exclusively" written to the Jewish Christians who came to Christ but still considering Judaism. I also said, NOT only the Jews but all those who comes to Christ by faith. See the quote below and the highlights.

Goshen360: The intention of God's speaking in this book was that the Jews who believed in the Lord but still lingered in Judaism would leave the law and cross over to grace ( Heb. 4:16; 7:18-19; 12:28; 13:9), that they would leave the old covenant and cross over to the new covenant ( 8:6-9:1-End ), and that they would leave the ritualistic service of the Old Testament and cross over to the spiritual reality of the New Testament ( 8:5; 9:9-14 ); that is, that they would leave Judaism and cross over to the church ( 13:13; 10:25 ), that they would leave the earthly things and cross over to the heavenly things ( 12:18-24 ), that they would leave the outer court, where the altar is, and cross over to the Holiest of all, where God is ( 13:9-10; 10:19-20 ), that they would leave the soul realm and cross over to the spirit realm ( 4:12 ), and that they would leave the beginning of truth and life and cross over to the maturity of life in the truth ( 5:11-6:1 ). [size=15pt]Not only the Jews who believed in the Lord but all who contact God by faith should be such river crossers.[/size] This is the purpose of God's speaking in this book.

Second. I believe and can also prove to you and everyone that Paul wrote this book of Hebrews. Here is my thought:

Peter primarily ministered to the Jews ONLY that became Christians while Paul was primarily sent and ministered to the Gentiles ONLY who became Christians (Galatians 2:7 ). Peter when he wrote to the Jewish Christians he was primarily sent to and ministered to made mentioned about an epistle written by Paul to the Jews (2 Peter 3:15-16) different from Paul's usual epistles that are primarily to the Gentiles. Take a look at this:

And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16 Kjv.

This is the parallel line. "Written unto you....according to wisdom" in comparison with "As also in....". Read from different translation and see the sense that "this certain/specific writings of Paul" is different from his usual "all other epistles". Now, we all know the root of the Jews is Abraham who is called Hebrew and from which God's covenant began with the Jews. I also showed you a verse where God himself called Himself the God of the Hebrews. I did not say it was exclusively written to them but primarily because of the OT content of the Jewish people heavily drawn from. Am not arguing for the title here anyway because I do not query the names of books of the bible as deemed fit by the Holy Spirit.

Skills10: 2.The lineage of Adam to Noah was thru Seth. when Adam lay with Eve and gave birth to Seth, she said God has granted me another son in place of Abel because Cain had become a wanderer and lived @ the east of Eden.
3. The bible does not contradict itself but you will always find answers. Jesus while answering the pharisees in matt 22 :23-30. Verse 30 says: At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; THEY WILL BE LIKE THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN. Which means angels don't marry. Also see Mark 12 :25. In these passages, Jesus specifically said we won't marry in heaven, we will be like angels. Whether fallen angels or God's angels. We can't say God's angels don't marry human but fallen angels do marry human. If angels don't marry, therefore there was no way angels were marrying humans in Gen 6 : 1-6.

We have talked about this which seems to be the argument of people who don't believe they are angels=sons of God. Note, Jesus gave a specific place and event: AT RESURRECTION AND IN HEAVEN. The angels IN heaven do not marry simply because they serve in the presence of God day and night and moreso, it is in RESURRECTION, not THE EARTH. I think this should explain that verse.

frosbel: It is actually chains of darkness, not chains and darkness, I had to correct this because of my next point.

Could it not be that Angels who left their first estate are simply fallen angels who rebelled against God with the devil and are bound in chains of darkness, meaning without the light and goodness of GOD, they are in a bondage of wickedness and cannot be realeased from it , until judgement day when they are destroyed , this is my understanding.

Just another thought, if we say that those angels could be the ones that sinned with devil and are bound in chains of darkness. Why is only satan spared loosed to be the god of this world? Why would God only bound those angels alone and leave satan? where did demons working with satan came from again? does that mean satan again created his own angels/demons should the ones that sinned had been bound in chains of darkness? This are just another thoughts though.

frosbel: Again you are ignoring the fact that ONLY GOD's angels appeared as men , there is no case of a demonic fallen angel changing into a man anywhere. The men wanted to sleep with them , because they thought they were ordinary men , that is until the angels struck them with temporary blindness.

Secondly , the bible says angels are ministering spirits sent to those who are heirs of salvation.

What is the prove that ONLY GOD's angel appear or can appear. The fact that angels do appear could also mean that nature of them being able to appear might not be taken away because that is the way they are created if they are to appear on earth. This is my thought anyway. They are spirit and it is possible they appear physical if they come on errand in the earth realm. My thought is, there seems to be possibility that angels regardless of if of God or otherwise can appear physical in the earth realm, they are simply spirits but in the earth realm they as seen as men. Their nature as men, when they appear as men we don't know unless you know but one thing is sure, they are seen and physical.

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Heb 1:7.

nedostic: At others, if of a truth the fallen angels mated with women.What stop other demons who are moving to and fro the earth not to be engaged in the unholy act within the present day generation? Has the Almighty God put restrictions on the demons or what in the post-flood era?

In my understanding, I think the sets of angels that committed such then are different from the ones working with the devil. This might look strange but the tone of 2 Peter 2:4 says, The angels that sinned" meaning not all angels sinned. I think it "might" not happen this days because those angels had been bound in chains and kept for judgment according to Peter and Jude. Again, somebody said, "maybe" because the "daughter of men" in these days are not as beautiful as those days.

nedostic: More so, I do like to ask a pertinent question once more concerning the book of Job about the sons of God being gathered and Lucifer was equally there in their presence before God. My question is rather simple. Can Lucifer still appear in heaven given that the sons of God as being mainly purported are angels of God?

About the "sons of God" as angel gathering and satan also appear with them. First, the support that the sons of God are angel in the book of Job is that, the book of Job was written in the time before Exodus. I might not go too deep into that analysis. So "the sons of God" as well known for angels at that time NOT used for men who have relationship with God. The term only comes in NT by adoption and Christians are called "sons of God".

Again, the context of Job says "sons of God" and we understand it is angels because the context says "BEFORE" the LORD. If you read many translations, some says "angels" while other says "sons of God". This happened in heaven because it says "BEFORE" God. This would have been shown to Job as revelation or vision of the throne of God so as to see his accuser, satan and what is going on in heaven. As to how possible is it for satan to still appear in heaven, I might simply/honestly not be able to answer that unless I find a bible verse to prove it. Thank you.

snthesis: na wa o-
y is no one quoting me
i guess i'll quote myself

To answer your #3 question. In my knowledge, It's because those angels had been bound in chains and darkness. They are not the same as demons we have working with satan now.

Answer to your question 2. Take a look even at that time, you will remember the even the men of Sodom still want to mate with the angel sent by God. To me, it seems that when angels come to the earth realm, there "might" be change in nature/form in the earth realm. Take a look at this and that is my line of reasoning:

Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Heb 13:2

LoJ: Where the Hell do you see that the Book was written to the Hebrews ? ? ?

Did you read it anywhere in the epistle that it is addressed to the hebrews? Or you are basing your asumptions on the title given by MEN and not by GOD nor by the author of the epistle...

I don't think the title of the book is based on assumption but rather on its content.

LoJ: Hello to all!

@ Goshen,

First of all, the name "letter to the Hebrews" is a name given by man, not by GOD neither by the author of the book itself. So your starting point (Abraham being the first hebrew) and introduction are not really relevant.

Secondly, we all from time to time sucomb to the temptation of thinking we can do what our forefathers could not do, We can unveil what was hidden to them. Well, my opinion is that, this is just youth and (over)zeal. The truth is that GOD decided to maintain the identity of the author of this great book (one of the deepest of the new testament) hidden.

All we can do about it, is guessing and supposing and that's all. Let's not cross the line of being sincerely mistaken.

Finally, I'd say if you want my opnion about the author of this book, I personnaly think that the profile of the writer fits with someone like Appolos or maybe Barnabas, that is an eloquent man well grounded in the scriptures and a close compagnion of Paul without being Paul himself.

Lion-EL of JESUS

Dear Brother Lion-EL of JESUS,

I appreciate your input. There was a time under buzugee thread and you mentioned something about this book and you also confirm it here that this book is one of the deepest of the new testament. Any bible student who haven't gone through this book is missing out something. I see it even deeper that it is and confirmed by you, probably based on strong revelations contained therein.

Second. If you say the title is given by men and not the author and not GOD, will you be able to tell us the name (you think or knew) was given by GOD? Perhaps you may know and we will all benefit. There is more to the title which is part of what I shared. Let's leave the title aside and work with the information about the title that is at hand. Aside, how do you know that the title wasn't given by GOD neither by the Author but by men? Do you have any prove for that?

Third, about wanting to know what our/my fathers did not know. I guess that is why I personally love to search and dig the deeper things of God. If you call it youth or over zealous, that is fine by me, lolz and no offense BUT I believe we can prove it with all the information open to us, contained in the Bible and the book itself.

Lastly, you said you are of the opinion that, "the profile of the writer fits with someone like Appolos or maybe Barnabas, that is an eloquent man well grounded in the scriptures and a close companion of Paul without being Paul himself". This is the purpose of this thread. You need to prove this please and let's have fellowship and reason together.

Image123: Here is the basis on which Jesus Christ was talking about divorce wherre He said Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Only that He wouldn't go with the stoning judgement because He brought grace. This is the same chapter.

This is your comments on Deut 22:13-21. The law clearly says something and you are here saying a different thing and blending it with Grace whereas the law at this time didn't leave room for Grace you are talking about. Where exactly do you stand? You can't be sitting on the fence quoting one hand law and the other hand Grace. Grace had not being given at this time of the law, so just follow it straight up. Okay. The law says "stone to death" but you have problem with this kind of laws that is the simple reason behind your hiding behind the Grace. This law did not says....because of Grace, spare her/him. You are the one saying that. Again, verse 21 simply says, "Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the LovePeddler in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you".

My brother, stoning to death by the law simply means stone to death, no Grace applied here sir. Grace was applied to the church after the death of Christ. Maybe you need ABC teaching on Grace but I know you are better than that.

Lastly, on your Deut 22:22-30. Again, I say the context is talking about "IN ISRAEL". I don't know how many years it will take us to understand that. Please, stop pulling scriptures out of context simply because you have "personal" issues with women wearing trouser. If you or we christians are to follow ALL these laws of Moses, aside the laws of the land we live, I tell you the truth, we cannot follow ALL of them and once we break one, we are guilty of ALL says the scriptures. Verse 22 says,

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

The way God speaks is very clear. Stop mixing Grace up with the law. It doesn't work that way. Christians are to also obey the laws of our land and be the best examples BUT certainly NOT the laws of Moses. It's simply NOT meant for Christians. Jews can still keep obeying the laws of Moses if they care but Christians obey the laws of Christ/NT laws as I have shown you from previous scriptures. Even at that, that is the reason the book of Hebrews was written to the Jews because they still to keep the Mosaic laws and Paul wrote to them God doesn't work that way anymore but has now announced His word in Christ. Heb 1:1-2. There was a time it was accepted to work through Moses and the Prophets but God changed it. Remember when Moses, Elijah and Jesus was on the mount of transfiguration, what did God say from above about Jesus? God didn't say listen to Moses nor Elijah, BUT listen to Jesus for He is the beloved. This is the revelation seen throughout the book of Hebrews. Jesus is better than Moses, Angels, the Prophets, the hall of faith etc for we now live by the faith of the Son of God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Gal 2:20 Kjv.

Moses didn't die for me and none of the old Patriarch died for me BUT Jesus. Who do I listen to then? Infact, Jesus said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment". John 7:24

I might need to continue this debate with you....if need be. I don't see where Jesus called wearing trouser by women a sin. Saying that is just not the Gospel of the NT, it might be said of the OT/Judaism BUT NOT for Christians sir.

Image123: Like i said at the start of this thread, i do not normally or usually go about correcting or condemning people on this verse and its applications. But if we are going to be truthful, at least for the purposes of this thread, and to prove all things. Then we should note that this verse sits in a higher class. A class of ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD THY GOD. So that even if by any chance, other verses around it are trivialized, this verse shouldn't. Be that as it may, i've talked much on it, i'm not going on another talk. But it seems clear and undisputed that trousers belong to men from history and from the Bible. It is some years ago that women began to wear trousers. Otzi the IceMAN is said to have been enjoying what belongs/pertains to him B.C. Some people ask of clothing like stockings/socks and co. It does not belong to any one gender as it were. Anyone can wear socks, slippers, glasses/specs. They do not GENERALLY specifically belong to one gender.

This is your response to Deut.22:5 and which is what this thread is all about: wearing trouser by woman or not. You said this verse still applies to us or everyone (Christians) because it sits on the higher class of ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD THY GOD. Again, you failed to understand the context is to ISRAEL NOT CHRISTIANS. The context of "ALL" that do such is ALL ISRAEL. Read again Deut 21:21; 22:22

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 22:22 Kjv

Image123: This is a responsibility on agricultural standards. God's promises come with conditions and responsibility. Blessed shall be your this and that is not beans or magic, it took discipline, not just trial and error, and crazy research that could lead to permanent damage of the best specie due to multiple crossings over time. Also deals with animal cruelty, and spiritually unequal yoke. They all still have their applications.. When you bring a donkey and a cow to work together, you would actually be punishing them, especially the donkey, and getting your work done. It is still wrong to do that today. You let those animal rights people catch you. [size=15pt]On the clothing, it still applies that we do not follow the world in its fashions but be simple and modest/moderate. A garment of divers sorts was not simple in those days in comparison(please do you research instead of throwing questions only, i also like and know how to be the silent reader, setting tough questions).[/size]

This is your response to Deut 22:6-11. This is a clear case of you doing another cherry picking on the laws you are fighting that it still holds. Take a look at verse 11 again and read what it clearly says and listen to yourself what you are saying in contrary.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together. vs.11

The next time you come open to argue this, kindly check the materials and content of your clothings. Okay. This is not talking about moderation. Thought am fully in support of moderate dressing as the bible says for us the church/christians/body of Christ. So I will preach same thing. This law clear says "woollen and linen TOGETHER. Stop applying to moderation where that law says another thing. This means you soft on the laws that are very though for you to obey and kick hard on the ones you have "personal" issues with. You have to rightly divide the word of truth.

Image123: The verse is in line with the previous, the children of Israel were expected to be different from others, distinct, separate. Believers today are under same rule, be separate and distinct, even in your appearance, modesty and sobriety.
Num 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue:
Num 15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: [size=15pt]The Israelis still wear this stuff, today[/size], we have the word of God written in our hearts, but the applications of this law remain significant. What you wear says a lot about you, and how you would be addressed. the people of the world are bold and eager to print all sort of rubbish and sentences and pictures on shirts. i find gullible christains wear shirts that say all sort of ungodly stuff. Things that even ordinary serious muslins would not wear. Your cloth is your identity most times. It easily says you are a fan of a particular football club or music star. We should do all things to glorify God. 1John 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

This is your response to Deut 22:12 and it says,

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest [thyself].

So here you agree the laws ARE FOR ISRAEL. That is why I highlighted ALL the above in RED for you. Yes, believer are to be different BUT NOT GOING ABOUT WEARING FRINGES TO DISTINGUISH US FROM OTHERS and again you are twisting this law to suit what you want to say or reading into the word of God. This law didn't say moderate, it simply says "make fringes upon the four quarters of they vesture" If you say this law meant to dress differently, am very sorry, you don't understand what this fringes meant. Go and learn the significant of fringes. I told you earlier this things are types and shadows. I give you assignment to go learn what "fringes" is pointing to for the believers. It is not dressing differently and it is not talking about moderate even though the NT exhort us to be moderate in our dressing.

Image123: Please, note that this is a judicial matter. It's not jungle justice. They didn't bring the child to the neighbourhood and stone him. They didn't stone him out of anger in the house because he didn't go and fetch water. They took him to the judges, the elders. When? When they felt he was useless. He was not just stubborn and rebellious, it was his nature, they had chastened him, and talked to him but he would not hear father or mother. They had lost hope. What do you want to do with such a child in the first place? Well, the judgement then was to kill him, so that evil is put away, and others will hear and fear. What kind of child would not listen to his parents or to elders, but will be rebellious. Rebellious is defying authority, fighting to overthrow a government or other authority. What sort of useless child is that? You want to pamper that kind of kid. No, of course take him to the authorities that can correct him. We still judge such a useless child today! Do you say, we are under the new testament, leave him. No, we judge him. [b][size=20pt]He's just not going to be killed because of grace that came by Jesus. It's the same grace that saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned.[/size] [/b]The adultery is wrong and will continually be wrong, that's the law. The stoning is good and right and holy, and Jesus said someone should cast the first stone. He didn't argue against the judgement, but by His grace now, the sinner/convict need not be condemned. He/she can be converted. The adulteress can become a child of God by grace, so too can the rebellious hopeless son become born again, and fervent in spirit. It is grace that brings this. If he/she continue in sin, they will ultimately still be judged by God. The new testament doesn't give them a go ahead to transgress the law.

Image123, I can't BUT laugh endlessly at you and your cherry picking the word of God. I think you "personally" have issues with women wearing trouser. If not, you won't be hiding under Grace in "some" aspect and then throwing out right "laws" in another aspect. Now, let me split ALL your cherry picking and tear them apart. Listen to what that laws says:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear".

You started out by saying it is a "this is a judicial matter. It's not jungle justice" and you also admitted that AFTER the Parents had corrected the child and the child didn't listen, THEN they take the child to the authorities and then the authorities will judge the child BUT you came back and hide under the Grace that that child (because we are under the Grace) will not be stoned to death BUT THE JUDGMENT THAT IS TO BE GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES IS THAT THEY SHALL BRING THAT CHILD TO THE CITY AND THERE HE (THE CHILD) SHALL BE STONED WITH STONES THAT HE DIE. Abeg, people make una help me read the verse and Judgment again because this judgment didn't leave room for Grace because the children of Israel are NOT under NT/GRACE at the time of this law so why hide under the Grace in this case? Huh? Why? This law simply says, bring the child to the city (after all efforts to correct and still prove rebellious) and stone him to death. Very simple law to obey....isn't it? No need hiding behind Grace, just follow and obey that law my brother and it shall be well with you. Even today's authority of any country will NOT do that and stone your own child to death and kill such child just because he is rebellious.

Again, you quickly supported your Grace stuff with the story of the woman caught in adultery. Still I can't help BUT laugh at you. I thought you should know that the law of Moses that apply to the rebellious child is different to the law that applies to adulterous man/woman. Also, Jesus was still under the law at the time of the adulterous woman, if NOT they won't bring her to Jesus as demanded to stone her based on what the law of Moses said so Grace you are hiding behind had NOT YET BEING GIVEN AT THAT TIME BECAUSE CHRIST HAD NOT DIED YET. I thought you are bible smart to know that.

Now, Let me split your "law conscientiousness" apart again. In the case of the adulterous woman, IT TAKES TWO TO COMMIT ADULTERY AND THE PHARISEES ONLY BROUGHT THE WOMAN TO BE STONED TO DEATH. For Goodness sake, where is the man in action? Huh? Where is he? maybe you can look for the man for us, lolz. Can you see the injustice to the law committed by the Pharisees? How can you stone only one person in the case of adultery when the original says both of them should be stoned? Can you see how you are hiding under Grace now just because you wanted to make a point. The two instances are not parallel (the adulterous woman and the rebellious child). Kindly look for another story to justify your law claim here because the case of a rebellious child only takes that child alone and the case of the adulterous woman takes two to commit adultery and only the woman was brought for judgment. This is partial and injustice. If I were a judge in a court and such case was brought to me, I will dismiss it without further delay if they can't produce the man in action. Jesus even had time talking/debating with those heartless Pharisees. "Maybe" the man is one of the Pharisees, only God know. If not, why will they hide the man?

Lastly, the final part of that laws says, "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and [size=15pt]all Israel[/size] shall hear, and fear" Vs. 21.

I think you have problem admitting that the "ALL" in the context of these laws is ISRAEL. I don't know why you keep omitting this very truth. Yes it is a law, call it whatever kind of law you want to call it, it is a law to ALL ISRAEL, not to the Gentiles and the Church of God. There are three groups that the bible addressed: Jews, Gentiles and the Church. 1 Corinthians 10:32 Kjv

Image123: This is permission and condition for marrying a captive, as usually the law didn't encourage them to marry non-israelites. In this case, this is a captive that could either be killed or become a slave. But they were permitted, if you "fall in love", instead of the other two options, you could marry her. But she is given her rights and privileges, and you are inturn given a full month to consider your decisions. They didn't go ahead to r.ape them or behave like the gentiles simply because she is a captive. It was a sane thing and a very much enviable law that we need in our days.

This is your response to the laws stated in Deut 21:10-14 and I quote so that the readers can follow accordingly:

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Everyone reading the context of this law from God will simple notice the context is "WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH TO WAR AGAINST THINE ENEMIES.....". The context of this law is Physical war. At this point, I will like you (Image123) to answer everyone reading if you still go to physical war against your enemies as Christians? Do you still fight physical wars? If you do, then apply this law to yourself otherwise, stop telling Christians to obey the laws given to the Jewish people according to 1 Cor. 9:21 (NLT)

Image123: Can anybody say this should not apply to us today? We are not under the law, therefore we should be partial to our children, that's wrong forever.

The above is your response to Deut 21:15-17. I will quote it again,

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

Again, you are being partial in how you interpret the word of God and not dividing the word of truth rightly. The context of this law also states it clearly, "WHEN A MAN HAVE TWO WIVES". Are you saying Christians should marry two wives in order to effect this law....given to the Jews? I don't have problem with this laws when it is concern with unbelievers BUT to tell us (Christians) that this law applies to us is to mean we should marry two wives because how will I apply this law if I don't marry TWO wives? How ?

I will respond to the rest according thereafter so the post wont be too long for others to read. My next comment will be on your reply to Deut. 21:18-21 on the rebellious child.

Image123: Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love is the fulfilling of the law. It's contradictory telling people not to fulfil the law.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

So loving your neighbours and loving God is what the whole law is about. When we say ceremonial laws in the OT, those are those rites and formalties, many of which we do not need to waste time doing again BECAUSE Jesus has done them for us. Like cleansings and animal sacrifices. Take this turtle dove, sprinkle that, if a person sees this he is unclean till evening, and its likes. Now we know that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, hence we do not need to take no turtle dove or heifer, we have a substitute, a better one at that. We are not unclean as Christ has cleansed us, and shown us a new and living way. We can eat his and that BECAUSE God has cleansed. But that is not to say we should not do anything ceremonial, weddings are ceremonial, the Lord's supper is ceremonial, water baptism is. So its wrong to conclude that ceremony is gone. Some parts of church services are ceremonial and ordered/arranged. [size=15pt]Every law of God is love and still very applicable to us, any.[/size] They are love. The Bible is our basic instruction and manual for living on earth. It's not all about heaven and hell. MAny ask, so you mean if i do this or don't do that, God will send me to Heaven or Hell. Not everything is for qualification to Heaven or Hell. Some are for your health, some are customary, for basic relationships and inter-relationships, some for the ecology, and on and on. Let me quickly breeze through that chapters fridayiwere asked on. It is still much applicable and beneficial to us. I'll cut for easier reading.

I have read ALL your articles and I will respond to the ones I will because NOT all are worth responding to. I agree with you on the basis on love and law. That is, if you love your neighbor, you will not kill him/her, you will not sleep with his/her spouse, you will not steal his/her stuffs etc. However, these are eternal moral laws that even some unbeliever will observe. You don't have to be a Christian to know that. This is one of the thing am talking about.

You talked about observing communion, baptism etc as STILL being ceremonial laws that we still observe. This is one of the reason I didn't want to read you post in the first place BUT thank God I did simply because I have known you to always go in circles on subject issue which you demonstrated the same when we both went head to head on the subject of tithing. This same thing you are demonstrating here.

By referring to baptism, communion and some other parts of worship as being ceremonial, you should know that those being observed as ceremonial are NOT OT based but rather based on Christ's teachings and commandments or what Christ told us to observe to do. You also agreed that the ceremonials of the OT is gone and yet you bring in the ceremonials of NT. You should know they are different based on the spirit on which they are observed. You are simply mixing issues up here simply because you want to make a point BUT you just agreed that the OT ceremonial is GONE.

The other statement of yours am afraid of is the one highlighted above. Am afraid that statement is half truth because the laws of Moses DON'T APPLY TO THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIANS.

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 1 Cor. 9:21 Niv

When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. 1 Cor. 9:21 (NLT)

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, Romans 2:14 Niv

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. Romans 2:14 NLT

I will respond to the rest of your comments according thereafter this post.

Pastor AIO: I find it weird that it is called the letter to the Hebrews. Were there any people or church in those days known as the Hebrews? Where were they? In Israel? Or some other part of the Roman Empire?

We know that the letter to the Romans was written to christians in rome, the letter to the Galatians was written to christians in Galatia etc etc. Who exactly was the letter to the Hebrews written to?

The "Hebrews" are the Children of Israel. They were called the "Hebrews" due to the language of the OT as the OT was written in Hebrew and some little parts in Aramaic but the NT is written in Greek also due to change in language from Hebrew to Greek but natively, the Jewish (Israelites) people are Hebrews. Christianity is made of ALL tribe of ALL nations which is NOT mainly for the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites ANYMORE.

Goshen360: The first Hebrew was Abraham ( Gen. 14:13 ), the father of all those who contact God by faith ( Rom. 4:11-12 ). Therefore, God is called "the God of the Hebrews" ( Ex. 9:1,13 KJV). The root of the word Hebrew means to pass over.[/b]It can mean specifically to pass over a river, that is, to pass over from this side of the river to the other side, to pass over from one side to another. Therefore, a Hebrew is a river crosser. Abraham was such a one. From Chaldea, [b]the land of idolatry, which was on the other side of the great river Euphrates, he crossed over to Canaan, the land of the worship of God, which was on this side of the Euphrates ( Josh. 24:2-3 ).

@ Image123,

This is NOT about catch you at your words brother. We are talking bible here and end up with whatever is sound doctrine, okay. The truth is your words mentioned "the covenant made with ISRAEL THAT Aaron ....". You accept the fact that Aaron is of Israel. That is the fact one.

Second, you seems to be dodging an important question that will take us further and that is,

Goshen360: Now, if you insist on we obeying the laws of Moses (generalizing the law now), Kindly answer this second question and let's go straight to the point:

If you have a rebellious son/daughter, will you stone that child to death? Answer YES or NO Please and let's treat issues straight.

For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace. Gal 5:4 NLT

Since you said we still keep some laws like the ceremonial laws even like baptism and communion. I will later tell you what you might not know about the difference. Kindly answer the above question and then we can proceed. I know you said I should read the stuff you have up there BUT I SIMPLY WANT A YES OR NO ANSWER FROM YOU. No long story.

@ Image123,

Please STOP all these long story stuff, it's boring and distortion to this thread. I asked you a question and you responded that the "old covenant was the covenant God made WITH ISRAEL THAT AARON....". So I asked you will you NOW agree with me that the Old Covenant was only given to ISRAEL?.

Now, if you insist on we obeying the laws of Moses (generalizing the law now), Kindly answer this second question and let's go straight to the point:

If you have a rebellious son/daughter, will you stone that child to death? Answer YES or NO Please and let's treat issues straight.

logicboy01: Hi hater

I'm depressed? How christian of you.

I don't hate you and I will never. But you need to grow up, you are too loosed on this board and it's not a good lifestyle even if you are an Atheist, you should just grow up and be a man, Okay. Your Boss, Buzugee is not in today to deal with you.

See, me no get your time. I have precious things to do with my time not going in circles with you. If they/someone explain one thing in the bible to you, you will come up with another fault you are always looking for in the bible (as e be say na soso communion you dey go chop for catholic then when u be church goer for 22 yrs. The day wey communion no dey, you no go go church meaning na communion hunger dey carry you go church. who knows maybe na because of communion u take become church goer in the first place sef, na only God sabi, ). You mind is veiled, turn to the Lord and the veil shall be taken away. You hear me.

ijawkid: Chei logic boy I just don't knw what to do with u......

U need serious cane......

So u have a problem with submissiveness but forgot about the word LOVE that husbands are told to display....

Self sacrificing LOVe.......

[size=15pt]Ur just a bigot and a trouble maker.....[/size]

I asked 2good who iis d head of his house...

And I'ma ask u too.....

Who will be d head of ur family mr logic boy when u get married??..

Ijawkid,

My candid advice for you is stop wasting your precious time with someone who knows the truth but just looking for loop holes in the word of God. The guy is simple depressed and looking for people to play around with on the Internet. You guys are giving him room to express his carnality on this thread. If I were you, Ijawkid, I will rather go use my precious time for something better because this logicboy01 will keep taking you in circles and wasting your time. If you have nothing better to do, go sleep and refresh yourself or do something better with your time. Thank you.

^^^
You are right BUT if you have studied it. You can proved the writer. Don't you believe you can prove the writer?

Image123: What is the first covenant which he speaks of? Then you would know what was taken away. The covenant/agreement that He made [size=20pt]with Israel that Aaron[/size] and his house would offer Him sacrifices, offerings, and burnt offerings for their sins. Read the passage please, and its context.

So now you agree with me that the first (OLD) covenant WAS WITH ISRAEL? AND NOT WITH THE CHURCH?

@ Image123,

I don't want to go into the debate of ceremonial and moral law stuff with you over and over again. If your claim is that the word "ceremonial and moral" don't appear in the bible and so, there is nothing like that. Well, permit me to say you err in that aspect. Ceremonial includes ordinances as I have stated before. Do you see any ordinances in the ten commandment? Where are you only holding onto trouser? What about stone rebellious kids? What about non-virgins? What about the ones that relates to eating? what about different cloths materials? What about mixed farming? What about wearing tassels and fringes?

For you to say because ceremonial as a word don't appear means we are not making sense is to say we should not believe in trinity, trinity don't appear in the bible. There are many words we use as terminologies today just to explain issues but they dont appear in the bible and you know it. So don't come up with such teachings as there is no ceremonial or moral in the bible. I can as well debate you on this topic without the use of ceremonial or moral law usage, if we are to generalize the law.

WELL, KINDLY ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOVE AND LET'S GO FROM THERE.

haibe: But did the Holy spirit mate with mary?

Do you know how it happened?